Premium

The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) has been amended with effect from 5 December 2019 to "repair" (in the words of the Bill) what has become known as the "medevac" legislation.

It is commonly said that the giving of immigration assistance by a person who is not an RMA makes that person liable for imprisonment, with exceptions. That is not an accurate statement. Unregistered assistance itself does not lead to imprisonment. What can lead to imprisonment is something else, as we explain.

It is common sense that visa applicants must notify the Department as soon as practicable of changes of circumstances that occur before visa grant. But does the obligation to notify apply to changes that occur after grant? If not, are there good reasons to notify the Department of changes of address or email address anyway?

Common mistake: "An unlawful non-citizen is necessarily barred under s 48 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) from making an application for most visa classes while in the migration zone". With respect, we explain why that assertion is wrong.

If the Minister issues a written direction to a person or body having functions or powers under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), are those directions binding on them? Are there circumstances where those persons or bodies are not required to comply with certain aspects of a Ministerial direction?

"The purpose of the instrument is to determine the maximum number of visas for [parent and other family] visas for the financial year commencing 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020".

If a child is born a non-citizen in Australia and, at the time of birth, one the parents holds a visa of a given subclass and the other parent holds a visa of another subclass, does the child "inherit" any of those 2 visas? If so, does the child inherit the most beneficial visa? Can the child "inherit" and hold both visas at the same time? Are there circumstances where the child will "inherit" no visa at all and will be born an unlawful non-citizen, despite the fact that the parents hold a visa? The answers might be surprising.

"Specifically, the instrument specifies forms 491D and 494V (Internet) as approved forms for Bridging A (Class WA) and Bridging C (Class WC) visa applications. This ensures that applicants who make an application for a substantive visa using approved forms 491D and 494V (Internet) will be able to make a combined application for a bridging visa with their application for a substantive visa".

We have recently received a copy of an electronic, unclassified newsletter published by the Department of Home Affairs for Regional Certifying Bodies (RCBs), which includes the following passage: "RCB officers can use the ESPM mailbox to raise issues requiring clarification and to copy us into your email to the RCB Advice mailbox in cases where you suspect fraudulent practices by nominators or migration agents".

The new legislative instrument specifies the period, manner and evidence of Labour Market Testing for the purposes of visa subclasses 457, 482 (TSS) and 494 (new regional visa)